Price is workable

profilevegaaltaada
trinidad_v_chade_decisions_by_supreme_of_pr_2001_law421_wk_3.html

 [removed]  [removed]  [removed]  [removed]  [removed]  [removed]

Decisions by the Supreme Court of PR 2001

TRINIDAD 2001 V. CHADE 2001TSPR007

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PUERTO RICO

 

Juan Felix Trinidad Garcia

Juan Felix Trinidad Rodriguez

Plaintiffs-Appealed

v.

Yamil Chade, John Doe, Tal Sutano

Defendants-Petitioners

Certiorari

TSPR July 2001

Case Number: CC-2000-60

Date: 18 / Jan / 2001

Circuit Court of Appeals: Regional Circuit I

Judge Speaker: Hon. Joseph M. Aponte Jiménez

Part Attorney Submitter:          Atty. Carlos G. Latimer

Defendant Attorney party:             Atty. José Nicolás Medina Fuentes

 

Subject: Civil Action, validity Letter-Agreement, Minor

 

CAVEAT

This document is an official document of the Supreme Court which is subject to changes and corrections of the compilation process and official publication of the Court's decisions. Electronic distribution is done as a public service to the community.

 

Opinion issued by the Court Associate Justice Lord REBOLLO LÓPEZ

 

San Juan, Puerto Rico, on January 18, 2001

 

According to the facts that both the instance forum as the intermediate appellate court considered proven, in early 1990 , when he began the career of boxer Juan Felix Trinidad, known as "Tito" Trinidad -hereinafter, Trinidad,   son-- its   lord father, Juan Félix Rodríguez -hereinafter Trinidad,   Trinidad, father-- acted as his only coach and manager. By the middle of that year , Mr. Yamil Chade, a renowned and experienced handler boxers showed interest in directing career Trinidad, son. In fact, as a result of discussions held for this purpose, the parties reached a verbal agreement whereby Chade would become part of the business address of the boxing career of Trinidad, son.

According to the aforementioned verbal agreement, Chade would be responsible for managing the boxing showdown Trinidad, son, with different opponents and negotiate the "bag" that is, the amount of money to be received by Trinidad, son, for every fight that would support . The Trinidad, meanwhile, the right to consent and / or veto proposals were reserved Chade, the latter earning 16.5% of the "bag" received by each bout will be held. This contract verbally survived for about a year.

On October 10, 1991 , Mr. Yamil Chade, Trinidad Sr. and Trinidad, Jr., formalized the agreement by a document signed by the three, entitled "Interim Agreement between Managers and Boxer". [1] At that date , Trinidad, son, still not had come of age. [2] Among other extreme was agreed that the term of the contract would be four years, that is, to overcome the 10 October 1995. However, agreed that the contract would be extended through automatic renewal for two additional years if during the original term of the contract Chade obtained a world championship fight for Trinidad, son. In that event, the contractual relationship is extinguished on October 10, 1997.

Trinidad, son, began to confront problems to the mandatory weight of one hundred and forty pounds of "junior-welterweight" division. This caused the concern of his father in the sense that it would be necessary to ascend to Trinidad, son, to the "welter" division of one hundred forty-seven pounds, with the possible consequence of losing the world rankings had already reached between the first ten of his division. For this reason Trinidad, father, asked Mr. Chade who communicated with Mr. Jose Sulaiman Chagnon, President of the World Boxing Council (WBC) to Trinidad, son, retained his world ranking when the "rise" of weight or division. Mr. Chade, pursuant to that assignment, contacted Mr. Sulaiman to discuss the matter. Sulaiman Chade required a written record for clarification of the contractual relationship between Chade and Trinidad, son regarding his authority to act on behalf of fighter.

To that end, Chade and Trinidad, son, met in the office of the Boxing Commission of Puerto Rico and with the help of President of the Commission, proceeded to draft Chade-indeed, it is issued to the said officer - a document, type letters, dated October 12, 1992 , entitled "Official Contract between the boxer Felix" Tito "Trinidad and Yamil Chade." [3]

After this "letter-contract" were it extended to the Mr. Sulaiman, the parties continued with the development of the boxing career of Trinidad, son. In fact, in June 1993, Trinidad, son, won the title of world champion one hundred forty-seven pounds World Boxing Council Welterweight Division. Progressively career Trinidad, son, he rose and, during this progress, were also accumulate differences of opinion between the Trinidad and Chade.

Were such differences for the September 11, 1995, the Trinidad filed with the Superior Court of San Juan of the Court of First Instance, a nullity action, resolution, breach of contract, damages, declaratory judgment, preliminary injunction and standing against Mr. Chade. In its action requested that the court ENACTED termination or absence of the contractual relationship between Trinidad, son, boxing and Yamil Chade like this handler. In the alternative, requested the termination of the contract concluded on 10 October 1991 [4] , arguing that the contractual relationship between the parties was void for lack of ability to Trinidad, son, to consent on the grounds that it was a minor at the time of signing the contract, October 10, 1991.

            Chade, meanwhile, reconvencionó against Trinidad arguing, in essence, that the actions of these prevented that he could get fights, and additional to Trinidad, son, which allegedly caused damage to him ascending bags to one million dollars .

After the trial on its merits, the trial court found, in essence, that: the contract made ​​between the parties on October 10, 1991 --aun when originally voidable by reason Trinidad, son at that time was minor- was one invalid due to the fact that had been confirmed or ratified by the son, Trinidad after this advenir to adulthood; that the contract was extended, automatically and in accordance with their terms, until October 10, 1997; that in view of this, Mr. Yamil Chade entitled to participate in percent agreed therein, in bags obtained by Trinidad, son, to date, amounting to the sum of $ 754,732.88, and the contract Letter signed by Trinidad, son, and Chade on October 12, 1992 did not constitute a "new" contract to replace that of October 10, 1991 [5] . Moreover, the trial court stated without counterclaim filed by Chade against Trinidad.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, Yamil Chade appealed to the Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that missed the instance forum "... to conclude that the document signed by Felix Trinidad Garcia and Yamil Chade, the October 12, 1992, all caps entitled 'Official Contract between the boxer Felix' Tito 'Trinidad and Yamil Chade' is not a valid contract. "

The intermediate appellate court, by order of December 20, 1999, upheld the original ruling. Argued the aforementioned judicial forum in synthesis and as appropriate, that no was no basis to interfere with the assessment and determination of the trial court to the effect that Trinidad, son, by signing the "letter-agreement" on October 12 1992 "... never noticed or acknowledged that this document could be anything other than a letter to keep classified as directed by the Lord Chade, and that absent the consent and function of a new contractual intent."

Still dissatisfied, went Yamil Chade before this Court in --Via certiorari-- review the decision issued by the Circuit Court of Appeals. He argues that the said court erred forum:

-in its doctrinal application of the legal concept of error in the declaration;

-at not apply to the situation made all the requirements that the doctrine has been developed for cases of nullity error-vice;

-at refuse to determine who were given the requirements for the application of the figure of estoppel as a basis for the validity of the agreement signed by Trinidad Jr. in October 1992.

 

We issued the order. Being able to resolve the appeal filed proceed to do so.

I

The "raison d'être" of the petitioner's disagreement with the contested decisions Chade is easily understood: to be valid "letter-contract" dated October 12, 1992, signed the same for him and Trinidad, son, Chade would be entitled to 16.5% of "bags" received by said boxer until 1999, ie two additional years who determined the trial court in its judgment .

The legal basis used Chade in support of its position is equally easy to understand: it argues that the reasoning used by the trial court to validate the agreement dated October 10, 1991     --this is that even when it was voidable by reason of the minority of Trinidad, son, that contract was confirmed or ratified by the boxer advenir most age-- is equally applicable to the "letter-contract" of October 12, 1992.

                                               No reason . Let's see why.

II

As is known, in Puerto Rico governs the principle of freedom of contract, under which the contracting parties may establish the covenants, terms and conditions as they see fit, provided they are not contrary to law, morals or public order.   Art. 1207 of the Civil Code of PR, 31 LPRA sec. 3372.

In the field of obligations and contracts, is fundamental doctrine that when the terms of a contract are clear and leave no doubt about the intention of the parties, there is no recourse to rules of interpretation.   Art. 1233 of the Civil Code of PR, 31 LPRA sec. 3471.   It is known also that following the completion of a contract, the parties are bound by what expressly agreed and the consequences arising thereof, that in accordance with good faith, the use and the law.   Art. 1210 of the Civil Code of PR, 31 LPRA sec. 3375.

Shares ex contractu are based on the breach of a duty arising from an express or implied contract, and aim that the promises are fulfilled on which the parties gave their consent. Ramos v . Rattan Orientalist Furnt, Inc.. , 130 DPR 712 (1992); Juarbe Ocasio v. Eastern Airlines, Inc. , 125 DPR 410 (1990), Santiago Nieves v. ACAA , 119 DPR 711 (1987); Mejias v. Lopez , 51 DPR 21, 26 (1937). Therefore, to proceed this action there must have been a meeting of minds which generates an obligation, condition or rule of law resulting from an agreement and has created expectations based on which the parties acted .   [6]

That, precisely , lies the legal basis defeat the argument, and position, the petitioner Yamil Chade.

III

 

Remember that the trial court, after holding the hearing on the merits of the case and to hear the testimonies of both Chade and Trinidad, son, gave full credit to the testimony of the latter on the fact that on 12 October 1992 is not there a new contractual relationship or agreement of wills; specifically found , in pertinent part, that "... Trinidad, son, did not intend either directly or indirectly to declare a different contractual intent to that contained in the contract of 10 October 1991, which was in force ... "and we really facing a situation of" ... complete absence of consent and formation of contractual intent ... ". [7]

On several occasions we have established that the direct statement of one witness, if believed by the trier of fact, it is sufficient proof of any fact.   IV R 10. Rule 10 (D) of the Rules of Evidence, 32 LPRA Ap. It is the trial court to appraise the witness evidence offered and determine its credibility.   Because of this, we have repeatedly stated that in matters of credibility grant you test great deference to the findings of fact made ​​by the lower courts. People v. Torres Rivera , 137 DPR 630 (1994). We just ... dumb and expressionless records "aquilatación respect to the credibility of the primary forum considering that ordinarily is imposed. '" Perez Cruz v. Hosp. La Concepción , 115 DPR 721 (1984). See also, Sanchez Rodriguez v. Lopez Jiménez , DPR 116 172 (1985).

Finally, in the absence of mistake, prejudice or bias, this Court will not interfere with the findings of fact, the assessment of the evidence and credibility awards made ​​by trial courts. People v. Maisonave Rodriguez , 129 DPR 49 (1991) . In this case, there are given the existence of either of these situations, why not there any reason to interfere with the assessment of the oral test did the trial court. 

We are aware, of course , that in relation to the evaluation of documentary evidence the Court is in the same situation that the lower courts, Ramirez Segal & Latimer v. Red Rigual , 123 DPR 161 (1989); Díaz García . v Aponte Aponte , 125 DPR 1 (1989); why we are in the same position as the instance forum to evaluate the "letter-contract" dated October 12, 1992. We undertake said task .

An examination of the document convinces us that it is evident that the purpose of Mr. Chade and Trinidad, son, in drafting the letter of 12 October 1992, was not to create a new contractual relationship or modify the link existing . Several elements are indicative that the letter in dispute is nothing more than a reference to better remember information document that Chade and Trinidad Jr. respective lords had in the terms of the October 1991 .

The text of the letter in   dispute complaint indisputably his informative concerning the contract that linked Trinidad and Chade. This document does not have its own contractual identity. Evidence of this is the fact that in its first paragraph it is stated that : "Although this agreement [the contract of October 10, 1991] is not registered in the Boxing Commission in Puerto Rico, There verbal and in writing, with conditions (approximate) following ... "(Emphasis supplied.)

Actually, the purpose of this document was merely demonstrate or to acknowledge the existence of a prior contract and force between Trinidad and Chade, for the purpose of establishing the authority of Chade to manage most helpful to career fighter. In fact, the letter was drafted as a necessary tool in aid of the race Trinidad, son, I just needed to prove the mediating capacity Chade before Mr. Sulaiman, existing capacity is not intended instituted by the document that is merely an evidentiary approach.

In the case before us, we repeat, everything is indicative that never was intended to create a new contract between Trinidad, son, and Chade. The same text of the letter in dispute reflects the parties only recognized as a contract between them reflected in the document of October 10, 1991: at the same they referred about as a source of authority to the efforts of Chade with Sulaiman. That was the expressed and clear will of the signatories of the letter.

In relation to the doctrine of the contracts it has been argued that only requires consent . Hence arises for the legal life a contractual link has been activated, express or implied agreement to be bound . Where no such willingness exists, or reasonable to conclude the fact of its existence foundation, they have emerged countless relationships, but not a contractual relationship . That, precisely , is the situation for our consideration.

For this reason, we conclude that it is totally unnecessary to address the issues --argumentados by the petitioner in his alegato-- Chade error, or estoppel in the contract. We do not this is a contract; ie we have a letter whose claims are inaccurate. Errors are charged to the appellate court, therefore, irrelevant to the conclusion arrived. Article 1218 of the Civil Code, 31 LPRA sec. 3405 concerning the effect of the error in hiring and doctrinal and jurisprudential conclusions on the nullity of contracts and estoppel, is intended to be applied to contractual relations, not the situation that we face.

In other words, these provisions do not apply to the situation of cars, in which there is no contract and, therefore, any consent given with the intention of bilateral or contractually bound. Chade could not reasonably conclude that his statement and that of Trinidad, Jr., in his letter to Sulaiman, and which he termed as a "proxy" to the contract of October 10, 1991 , constituted a new declaration of contractual intent.

Chade himself had the leading role in drafting the document, which clearly states that only intention is to summarize the same about the content of the true binding contract. It can not now argue that sought to reduce to words a new contractual intent. Neither the document nor the circumstances of its writing, Chade endorse claims that the October 12, 1992 a new contract was drafted. Not only consider here what internally by Trinidad dear son, but his actions in relation to the letter, were never comply with affirmative action an intention to hire.

For the reasons already given, it must confirm the judgment rendered in this case by the Circuit Court of Appeals.

Judgment of Compliance is issued.

REBOLLO FRANCISCO LOPEZ

Associate Justice

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

San Juan, Puerto Rico, on January 18, 2001

 

For the reasons stated in the foregoing opinion, which does form an integral part of the present, confirming the judgment delivered in this case by the Circuit Court of Appeals issued.

 

This was uttered, and sends the Court certifies the Secretary of the Supreme Court. The lady Rodon Naveira and Mr. Fuster Berlingeri Associate Justices concur in the result without written opinion.

 

Isabel Llompart Zeno

Secretary of the Supreme Court

 

Footnotes

[1] Literally, the document has the following form:

 

"October 10, 1991

TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MANAGERS AND BOXER

Mr. Yamil Chade and Mr. Felix Trinidad, Sr., father of the fighter, undertake the following: both handle boxer's career internationally in their responsibilities. Both must agree in their direction.

Mr. Felix Trinidad, Sr. is committed to train and maintain boxer in optimal conditions for all his fights and take care of your health and all obligations required by the boxer to progress your career.

The Manager is required to inform the co-driver Trinidad opponents each fight and win the bag boxer and sharing between fifty percent of thirty-three corresponding its directors.

Mr. Chade is required to exhaust all resources and efforts to achieve the best benefits for boxer and is the only obliged to represent internationally selecting the developer to better economic benefit will provide the boxer.

This contract is concluded for four years. If during   the term of the same directors fail for a fight for the world title, is automatically extended for another two years .

(FDO.) Yamil Chade

Manager

(FDO.) Felix Trinidad, Sr.

Co-Manager

(FDO.) Felix Trinidad, Jr.

Boxer "   (Emphasis supplied.)

 

 

[2] Trinidad Jr. was born on January 10, 1973. In fact, it was a minor at the dates on which the two allegedly signed contractual documents that concern us here .

 

[3] This document was drafted in the following terms:

"October 12, 1992

OFFICIAL CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOXER FELIX "TITO" TRINIDAD AND YAMIL CHADE

Mr. Jose Sulaiman

President of the World Boxing Council (WBC)

Dear Mr. President:

I swear and respond to represent the boxer Felix Trinidad, international-mind ranked in the No. 9 WBC Jr. Welter internationally. Although this agreement is not registered in the Boxing Commission in Puerto Rico, there is verbal and in writing with the conditions (approximate) following :

I promise to be your MANAGER, WITH HIS FATHER, Mr. Felix Trinidad as its CO-MANAGER. In countries where government regulations do not allow to be Promoter and Manager at a time, Mr. Felix Trinidad assume to be their official Manager with the powers that correspond to it. Countries where promotion and direction Handler is allowed, Yamil Chade Manager assumes responsibility for Trinidad and Co-Manager. The agreed percentage between Boxer and Handler of 33% will be split between Felix Trinidad, Sr. and Yamil Chade.

Felix Trinidad father, undertakes to train and implement physical conditions Felix Trinidad, son, with the responsibility that the boxer in his career as a boxer. Yamil Chade, undertakes to represent it internationally. Travel expenses, hotels, advertising and other necessities required [to] promote and

Boxer handle correspond to Yamil Chade only, with all the responsibility and power to select the promise that stay active boxer's career. Both the Boxer as   the Co-Manager, Mr. Trinidad, should know who the opponent and how much they will win every fight in US $, for the duration of the contract and covenants.

This agreement between the boxer for promotion and management, has a duration of four years .

Chade is the only selectable promoter or promotions Boxer perform as it has since the beginning of his speech in the contract with absolute power. All expenses for classification, keep active, advertising until his mandatory fight for the world title, as it has done so far, are those of Chade, or partners who are interested as Acaries brothers of Paris, the French TV or hospitalizations developers at no cost to the boxer and comanejador.

In case handlers remain active boxer and classified entitled to fight for a world title, will be extended for four more years .

FELIX "TITO" TRINIDAD, has difficulty making the weight of your current search. Where I pray and thank that is classified in the category Welter, without being lowered at its current level. I request at a time, which is Trinidad reward for his exemplary conduct as a college student, no vices, true to his discipline as an athlete and religion, instead of classification in its category Welterweight division, below the ten first in the world, be granted the number six, as a gift of merit, not only as a great prospect, undefeated with 16 and 0, with thirteen KO, since this award can be a guide and example for our misguided youth. I appreciate executives with votes of this convention, this support that the People of Puerto Rico and International Boxing appreciated.

Cordially

(Sgd.) Felix Trinidad, Sr.

(Sgd.) Yamil Chade

Felix Trinidad Jr.

(Sgd.) Boxing Commission of Puerto Rico

(Sgd.) Jose Sulaiman Chagnon

President of the World Boxing Council " (Emphasis supplied.)

[4] The Trinidad have never recognized as an agreement binding the "letter-contract" dated October 12, 1992.

[5] In relation to this aspect, nerve and crucial to the proper resolution of this case, the trial court stated, in pertinent part, that:

 

"However, after examining and carefully read the letter to Mr Zulaimán and analyze their content together with the testimony of the parties at the hearing, we conclude that he is not attending the reason Mr. Chade, in that the letter was a new contract that would have the effect of substituting the terms of the contract of 10 October 1991. Nor had the legal consequence of terminating the contract which existed between the parties.

            We explain.

            Broadly, if we examine the earlier acts wisely, peers and following the signing of this letter, to determine what the intention of the contracting parties, we note that for the sole purpose fighter chasing this communication was to make Zulaimán intervene career in order to keep it in their classification . It was evident in the act of judgment, than never Trinidad son, anticipated or foresaw that his signature on the letter could have the effect of tie to Chade longer, especially when as he and his father felt in some awkward way, tied to the first contract and covertly by grounds or were not beginning to emerge weight differences between the parties. To Trinidad son, it was a letter to Zulaimán order to obtain the privilege of staying in the same classification.

            .................................................. ............................................

            We are fully convinced that Trinidad son had no intention either directly or indirectly declare a currency other than that contained in the contract of October 10, 1991, which was valid contractual intent . Actually, Trinidad child if at that moment would have received or warned that the letter could be interpreted by Chade or any other person as a new contract he had signed no period. Irrespective of the consequences of their decision.

            Apart from the above, the record is completely devoid of evidence that allows us to conclude that at some point Chade Trinidad and son talked or externalized's will that be a new contract.

            Indeed, without fear of committing an injustice we conclude that we are not only against the vice of consent mistake but rather a total absence of consent and formation of contractual intent . That is so because at no time either before, during or after being assembled in the office of the Commission, Trinidad son had a belief or impression that they were in a new negotiation. "(Emphasis supplied.)

 

[6] Ordinarily, each party hopes that the other party will comply with the freely agreed, under the principle of enforcement of contracts and good faith.   An action or willful omission by which results breached an obligation previously constituted gives rise to action of contract damages. Vélez v. Boy Scouts of America Puerto Rico Council , res. the May 7, 1998, 98 TSPR 55.

[7] At the hearing, Trinidad, Jr., stated that the October 12, 1992 Mr. Chade called him to do him the favor of carrying the Boxing Commission of Puerto Rico as usual had, without mentioning the reason for the visit to the Commission . Once the Commission, Trinidad, son, sat in a small room that was next to the office of Mrs. Delgado Berti. He waited for more than ten minutes what Mr. Chade made ​​its management with the help of Mrs. Delgado Berti. As soon as the document is drafted, Chade informed him that it was a letter for Mr. Sulaiman, requesting that no "down" of "ranking" . He argued that as he did not want that to happen and thinking that the document was a letter these purposes, signed without reading . ENP pp. . 47 to 49. Furthermore, Ms. Delgado Berti said that transcribed the document as dictated by Mr. Chade ; denied that Trinidad Jr. was listening in full the dictation process.

 

Click Here to return to previous menu and select another case.

CAVEAT

This document is an official document of the Supreme Court which is subject to changes and corrections of the compilation process and official publication of the Court's decisions. Electronic distribution is done as a public service to the community.

LexJuris of Puerto Rico is always under construction.

| Home | Lawyers | Applicants | Laws and Jurisprudence | Information | Agencies | Towns of Puerto Rico | Services Futures | Advertising | Directories | Shopping | Events | News | Entertainment | Publications CD | Law Review |

The information, images, graphics or other content on all documents prepared by Lexjuris owned Lexjuris. Other documents available on our connections are property of their respective owners. All rights reserved. Copyright (c) 1997 LexJuris of Puerto Rico.

[7]

Original text

Contribute a better translation